Minister for Equalities invites Mridul Wadhwa to meeting to discuss LGBT+ hate crime

[Arran2024]

https://x.com/oliviabaileymp/status/2032154723512430645?s=20

The meeting features several trans women. Wadhwa famously applied for a job reserved for women at the Edinburgh rape crisis centre, told women who weren't happy with men in their support groups to "reframe their trauma" and was forced out after an investigation.

The LGB community needs to kick the alphabet parasites into orbit.
They are blood-sucking leeches.

It is interesting how trans-identified women never seem to be invited to pontificate at these things isn't it? They only care about them when they are having babies or can be used as an excuse for TIMs to use the women's toilets.

But of course - men's rights at all times. No amount of twirly skirts and lipstick can hide their male arrogance and privilege.

I agree - LGB✂T all the way, but it's not straightforward: 'the LGB community' isn't a monolith, it's just a whole lot of not-organised people with different levels of engagement and different opinions.
Fortunately there's the LGB Alliance speaking on our behalf, but fighting against the trans juggernaut is a struggle.

Once upon a time, Stonewall stood up for lesbians and gays😕

I'm not really familiar with the movers and shakers within the Labour party - or the other parties - beyond the leaders.

Is the point that if Labour were to enact the SC FWS ruling there would be so much internal blowback that the party would implode?
Or is TWAW et al. a sentiment that is generally accepted within the grass roots of the party?

Who knows at this point? But it's crystal clear that women's rights and equalities are absolutely nowhere in Labour's interests or priorities, and any hope that once in power they'd turn out to be less misogynistic and left in the 1950s in their attitudes has long since gone.

Is the point that if Labour were to enact the SC FWS ruling there would be so much internal blowback that the party would implode?

If so, it reflects very poorly on both the Labour Party and its Leadership, ie. that the party might implode because it needs to:
a) stop being a seething pit of misogyny
b) start obeying the law.

Some possibilities:

• Key LP figures are compromised and have a conflict of interest due to personal loyalties to trans kith or kin (the Kinnocks cannot be the only ones)
• Key LP figures are cross-dressers/AGPs/GAMPs

Or is TWAW et al. a sentiment that is generally accepted within the grass roots of the party?

That seems extremely unlikely given the results of the latest Sex Matters Poll:

New poll shows most people prefer single-sex toilets and changing rooms
9th March 2026
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/new-poll-shows-most-people-prefer-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms/

Other possibilities, one or more of:

• Trade Union activists are all TWAW and key LP figures (Bridget Phillipson comes to mind, inexplicably!) are frightened of losing money and support
• Trade Union activists are all TWAW and the LP is frightened of losing money and support to rival Left Wing parties
• Other important LP donors are TWAW and might withdraw funding support

The LP membership is wildly unrepresentative of Labour voters and has been for decades (I once saw a study, I forget where, saying 40% or some similarly ridiculous proportion of the membership are teachers)

But I'd say

• MPs are nervous of the membership - they saw what happened to Rosie Duffield, and trigger ballots are coming up
• Leadership are nervous of losing support from the unions in terms of both funding and boots on the ground, and union officialdom is solidly TWAW (how did that happen I wonder?)
• The broader informal complex of NGOs, campaign groups and cultural figures surrounding Labour is solidly TWAW
• A huge proportion of the PLP is gay and will have been trained in Stonewall politics
• A large proportion of the PLP is subject to non-binary niece syndrome
• That's even more the case in the cabinet (depending on which gossip you believe, the number of cabinet ministers with trans kids is at least three and could be six)
• Starmer is a sexist git and has a tendency to dig his heels in when confronted by uppity women

To be honest I think a lot of people in Labour are saying TWAW because they know they have to say it, and privately disbelieve it, but hardly anyone is willing to say the emperor has no clothes.

A huge proportion of the PLP is gay and will have been trained in Stonewall politics

I looked this up - general UK population LGB percentage 3.5 - 3.8%, PLP 60 MPs out of 403 eligible to vote = 14.9%. So 4x more MPs than expected from that estimate.

But the 3.5 to 3.8% number is for all adults within the UK and LGB identity tends to cluster in 16-24 age group with lower numbers for older groups.

Average age of a UK MPs at the 2024 election was 48 years and would now be almost 2 years older. Estimate average age as 50. For the 50-64 age group the population is 2.4% LGB.

This makes the LGB representation within the PLP about 6x higher than in the general population.

That's even more the case in the cabinet (depending on which gossip you believe, the number of cabinet ministers with trans kids is at least three and could be six)

Three would be a remarkably high number, but six?

Labour seem to be resigned to losing parts of the Red Wall to Reform but are hoping to limit the overall losses by shoring up the parts of their base that might be tempted to move over to the Greens and whatever alliance they're building. That means not saying "no" to some of the madder fringe ideas floating around, such as genderism.

Three would be a remarkably high number, but six?

Reminds me of "Six Degrees of Separation".

I put these questions to Grok and the answers are based on simple demographics:

Q1: how many MPS of each party are likely to have a relative who identifies as trans or non-binary?

Labour: 8.
Conservative: 2.
Liberal Democrats: 1.
SNP/Reform/Green/DUP/Plaid/others: 0

Q2. how many male MPs are likely to be secret cross-dressers?

Labour: 6.
Conservative: 2.
Liberal Democrats: 1.
SNP/Reform/Green/DUP/Plaid/others: 1.

Q3. how many male MPs are likely to be GAMPs?
(ie. sexually attracted to pre-op TiMs. Research indicates that they will be straight not gay.)

Labour: 11.
Conservative: 6.
Liberal Democrats: 3.
SNP/Reform/Green/DUP/Plaid/others: 1 each (6 total)

Possible MPs per Party compromised by such conflicts of interest:

Labour: 25
Conservative: 10
Lib Dems: 5
SNP/Reform/Green/DUP/Plaid/others: 7

TOTAL: 47

Piffling numbers when there are 650 MPs and the current Labour majority is 167.

However, if there were a disproportionate number who were Ministers or Whips then they would have disproportionate influence.

www.gov.uk/government/ministers

It's dreadful that these men were given a seat at the table and have such access to the minister. But the righteous anger at this probably won't stop the activists' access, it will just stop Bailey posting and that future meetings are not made public.

Trans activists regularly use Freedom of Information Requests to find out which organisations have been invited to meetings. Perhaps we should be just as inquisitive?

It certainly isn't going to look much better if an FOI demonstrates that not only was a very limited and specific viewpoint invited by government with intentional avoidance of balance and impartiality, but this was held secretly in a rather forlorn hope of hiding it. So yes, would be a good way forward.

Good grief this government is awful. Awful enough that I'm not sure even them being publicly shamed on this front would make any difference, they just seem to lack any conscience.

Well, some people enjoy being shamed.

Q1: how many MPS of each party are likely to have a relative who identifies as trans or non-binary?
Labour: 8.
Conservative: 2.
Liberal Democrats: 1.
SNP/Reform/Green/DUP/Plaid/others: 0

But GenAI is unreliable… do we believe that none of the SNP or Plaid or Greens (okay not many of those but 5?) have 0 trans identifying relatives? Surely all of them do?

Plus, more than being Labour, which can be relative to total numbers, I’d guess that politicians in general have more trans identifying relatives, similar to the arts. Sharing a number of characteristics between those groups.

do we believe that none of the SNP or Plaid or Greens (okay not many of those but 5?) have 0 trans identifying relatives?

No, I don't believe that because, as mentioned, "the answers are based on simple demographics" and the numbers of MPs per party.

I think it is a minimum based on simple demographics but, based on that, 6 Cabinet Members with trans identifying relatives seems rather unlikely.

I did wonder if it might be more possible for all Ministers and Whips:
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers

If MPs are comparable to the Arts, what would your best guess be for the number with trans identifying relatives out of 650 MPs?

There is an advert on Mumsnet right now asking for our views to be sent to Olivia bailey; any chance it's an open comment and we can ask her why she invited the odious mridul to this meeting? It keeps moving too fast for me to click on it. Pops up when I'm on AIBU or the Scotsnet threads.

Is it this thread?
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/sponsored_discussions/5502971-minister-for-children-and-families-olivia-bailey-wants-to-hear-from-you